this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023

144 points (95.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35810 readers

1055 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

ja2@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

L3s@lemmy.world

144

Honda's commercials saying they are going to be carbon neutral by 2050. What? (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago by mysoulishome@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What does this mean, if anything? How would it be possible for a car company to be carbon neutral? Is this just nonsense/posturing since it’s so long from now?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 103 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

There will for sure be some "Creativity" with their numbers.

"Carbon Neutral" will only apply to the manufacturing of the product, not the life of the product.
It will probably also only apply to the assembly that is done in-house. It might not apply to things like the tires.

It will also probably be done through some bulllshit "carbon credits", which are about as honest and reliable as those "no, our $2 chocolate definitely didn't use any child labour, and the farmers definitely aren't paid slave-wages." badges you find on foods.

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 39 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Similar to how Subaru brags about their "zero landfill" production. Manufacturing a car absolutely generates waste. They just juggle the supply chain to have all the waste happen at their suppliers.

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Zero landfill is not zero trash. It's just that the waste has to be recyclable or incinerated.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"But their comment is still likely true and they're offloading anything not recyclable onto their suppliers, heh.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

But what waste do they have that they wouldn't want to eliminate for production reasons? They assemble cars from parts they buy. A lot of times these parts come from smaller machine shops. A pallet of parts comes in, it gets out on the car, pallet returns to the supplier for the next load. I'm not sure why people are confused here. It's not like they want the parts to be individually packaged.

Caveat: I'm not a manufacturing expert but I have met some of these machine shop people.

[–] Klanky@sopuli.xyz 21 points 11 months ago

As someone who has a client who is an automotive OEM (I work with Customs and Imports), most of the parts are made by suppliers, who use parts from other suppliers, and barely anything is done in-house except maybe final assembly, so your comment totally tracks.

It’s suppliers all the way down LOL.

[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Ah this makes sense. Seems like they are trying to say Honda’s impact on the planet will be carbon neutral, which seems impossible.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Honda: WE'RE carbon neutral, but if you drive one of our cars, that's on you.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 1 points 11 months ago

Presumably by 2050 any new cars they sell will be electric. I don't see anyone selling a ton of ICE cars at that stage except for niche applications (and they can easily spin that off into a different company if needed for carbon accounting purposes).

[–] Dmian@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seeing at how bad Japanese car manufacturers are at producing good electric cars, and how they may be replaced by Chinese companies, maybe they mean they’ll be bankrupt by 2050… :P

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t say they’re bad at it, just playing catch-up after they bet on the wrong technologies.

Toyota was the first to sell a usable hybrid back when BEV battery tech wasn’t there yet; Honda bet on hydrogen fuel cell tech.

When it turned out everyone was going with the Tesla BEV concept, Honda and Toyota were already mid-development lifecycle with investments in technologies that didn’t make the cut.

Now that those lifecycles are starting to wind down, we’ll see of they can leapfrog the current designs for BEVs to come up with the next big thing before China or Korea beats them to it.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Honestly, I think hybrids are the least environmentally damaging of the 3 main car types. Mining lithium is extemely environmentally destructive, and we're going to see the consequences of that in the coming years as full EVs continue to explode in popularity. Hybrids use a fraction of the lithium if EVs and produce a fraction of the emissions of full ICEs. I really don't understand why hybrids aren't being pushed more until better, sustainable and scalable battery tech is discovered.

[–] nous@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

You assume they are even going to justify the bare minimum... it is so far in the future they are just hoping everyone will forget about it.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 45 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, not an answer here, but a good analogy. It has a lot to do with creative accounting and making up definitions.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

😂 hilarious and perfect

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Delta airlines is running similar ads. It all sounds like they are kicking the can down the road. “Oh in thirty years everything will magically be better!”

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's not like these pledges are legally binding. You just say you're working on it and that means governments can point at that and say they don't need to implement any regulation as 'the industry is self regulating'. Then 30 years later nobody will think to check, or the corporation will be acquired by someone else, or, best case scenario we have magical technology that makes it actually possible.

[–] TheInsane42@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They can, when they limit CO2 emissions as much as possible and compensatw for the remaining emissions by planting trees and other tricks.

Also, 'being carbon neutral' can mean several things:

ensure the company doesn't produce CO2 (net)
ensure the company and the commute of the employees doesn't produce CO2 (net)
... plus suppliers
... plus transport of the goods produced
...

And so on,... it all is just how you define it.

My house is the greenest in the neighbourhood and probably in the country. That it has nothing to do with being eco friendly but more with the paint on it is just a minor detail. ;)

[–] ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone 4 points 11 months ago

Thank you for actually attempting to answer the question instead of just spouting the knee-jerk reaction of "it's bullshit".

And yes, maybe it is bullshit. Maybe they'll never end up actually offsetting their carbon footprint. Maybe they'll think they are, but end up getting scammed out themselves. Last Week Tonight did a great piece on Carbon Offsets on that whole subject.

[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

By 2050 we will be so fucked no one will be paying attention.

[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

It means they're either holding out of a sudden breakthrough that will let them become carbon neutral overnight for free or they're hoping no one will be around to call them out on their bullshit by then

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Could mean the world will end in 2049, so nobody will be here to dispute it.

[–] paradiso@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Nice! :)

[–] Fake4000@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most probably carbon offsetting

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

This should be the top comment.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

Roche pharma also has a goal to reduce their cost to society by half by 2030.

What does that mean? What metric measures cost to society? What will they actually do? Nothing, nothing, nothing.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

It's like Micheal Scott yelling "AND WE'RE GOING CARBON NEUTRAL!!!!" at the stock holders meeting.

[–] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Green washing.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 12 points 11 months ago

How would it be possible for a car company to be carbon neutral?

By only using carbon neutral energy in their manufacturing? Car companies are really not special in that regard.

I'm not saying that's going to happen and that they aren't posturing. But like there is no fundamental mystery to the "how".

[–] art@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just gotta buy some carbon credit and then you can burn as much oil as you want.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 4 points 11 months ago

And the carbon credits are basically some scammer that promises to plant some trees somewhere remote where nobody can actually check.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Same way phone manufacturers are aiming to be 100% green by passing off all the blame to the client. "We may have made it impossible for you to change the battery once it's fucked but it was your choice to throw the phone in the bin"

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I remember when the future date for goals no one intended to meet was 2030.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah…. Well… The future isn’t what it used to be.

[–] peastea@feddit.de 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

While it's a different company I think Bosch as an automotive supplier can serve as an example on how this can be calculated as they are already "carbon neutral".

https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/environment/

At present, we use carbon credits to offset residual CO₂ emissions, such as from combustion processes (heating, process heat). In addition, we refer to carbon credits to offset electricity sourced in countries with only limited availability of green electricity. As we make progress with levers 1 to 3, we want to gradually reduce the share that we offset to achieve carbon neutrality to no more than 15 percent by 2030.

[–] jafffacakelemmy@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it's nonsense. In 2050 if they aren't carbon neutral, they haven't broken any laws so there'll be no punishment. So why not announce lofty goals?

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why do you think it is impossible for people at Honda to care?

[–] nous@programming.dev 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is not impossible for people at Honda to care. Just not the right people, those that can actually make a difference. The decision makers are all looking for what gives them the most profit, if not then they are not in their position long or, really, never get to a position that matters in the first place.

The only thing that capitalism cares about is profit, by very definition.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Therefore it is up to consumers to make sure that being environmentally conscious is profitable.

I was going to buy Hondas anyway because they are cheap and reliable but if Honda as a company really does become carbon neutral that's an added bonus that I'm thrilled about. Even if Hondas become moderately priced and reliable instead of cheap and reliable as a result, they'll still be on my radar.

[–] nous@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You counter your own point...

You cannot trust people to do what is right for the environment. They wont do anything until they see the effects for them selves and by then it is far too late to do anything meaningful. And if/when they do finally care all they see is a lot of green washed campaigning by every company claiming to be green when non of them are and they have no real choose and a lot of confusion. You need strict and effective regulation to curve this behavior in companies.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

You cannot trust people to do what is right for the environment

Until we get our AI GPT overlords, people is all we’ve got.

[–] Chozo@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Money tends to have that effect.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Carbon compensation like reforestation

Energy from green sources for their factories

No more gas cars also helps a whole lot if they calculate over the car's lifetime vs a gas car

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

🍃Greenwashing🍃

[–] EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Seems like you missed their other commercial where they said they'd start a nuclear Armageddon in 2049

[–] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

As for honda yeah theyre bullshitting. But as for a car company being carbon neutral, where does it become impossible?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Bs they won't stand behind.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

Probably involves carbon offsets.

[–] crsu@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The robot dogs with machine guns on their back want to have a word with you about your negative opinions about the company

[–] eronth@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Carbon neutral means you try to "offset" your carbon. It's half scam, half helpful. The idea is if your company produces an unavoidable amount of carbon, you offset this by supporting Carbon-free solutions elsewhere making your net production "neutral". It's a scam because sometimes the offset is stuff that was never going to produce carbon, and also because using other areas to claim "neutral" causes a weird double count. Carbon neutral is less good of a solution than carbon free, but it's a step in the right direction.

However, target year of 2050?? Fucking what? That's not something to brag about, that's painfully and embarrassingly slow. That's embarrassingly slow to be carbon free, much less carbon neutral.